Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background/Aims: Optimal risk stratification based on simplified geriatric assessment to predict treatment-related toxicity and survival needs to be clarified in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: This multicenter prospective cohort study enrolled newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL (≥ 65 yr) between September 2015 and April 2018. A simplified geriatric assessment was performed at baseline using Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental ADL (IADL), and Charlson’s Comorbidity Index (CCI). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Results: The study included 249 patients, the median age was 74 years (range, 65-88), and 125 (50.2%) were female. In multivariable Cox analysis, ADL, IADL, CCI, and age were independent factors for EFS; an integrated geriatric score was derived and the patients stratified into three geriatric categories: fit (n = 162, 65.1%), intermediate-fit (n = 25, 10.0%), and frail (n = 62, 24.9%). The established geriatric model was significantly associated with EFS (fit vs. intermediate-fit, HR 2.61, p < 0.001; fit vs. frail, HR 4.61, p < 0.001) and outperformed each covariate alone or in combination. In 87 intermediate-fit or frail patients, the relative doxorubicin dose intensity (RDDI) ≥ 62.4% was significantly associated with worse EFS (HR, 2.15, 95% CI 1.30–3.53, p = 0.002). It was related with a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 symptomatic non-hematologic toxicities (63.2% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001) and earlier treatment discontinuation (34.5% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) in patients with RDDI ≥ 62.4% than in those with RDDI < 62.4%. Conclusions This model integrating simplified geriatric assessment can risk-stratify older patients with DLBCL and identify those who are highly vulnerable to standard dose-intensity chemoimmunotherapy.

Objective: The incidence of hip fractures is increasing worldwide with the aging population, causing a challenge to healthcare systems due to the associated morbidities and high risk of mortality. After hip fractures in frail geriatric patients, existing comorbidities worsen and new complications are prone to occur. Comprehensive rehabilitation is essential for promoting physical function recovery and minimizing complications, which can be achieved through a multidisciplinary approach. Recommendations are required to assist healthcare providers in making decisions on rehabilitation post-surgery. Clinical practice guidelines regarding rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapies) and management of comorbidities/complications in the postoperative phase of hip fractures have not been developed. This guideline aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for various treatment items required for proper recovery after hip fracture surgeries. Methods Reflecting the complex perspectives associated with rehabilitation post-hip surgeries, 15 key questions (KQs) reflecting the complex perspectives associated with post-hip surgery rehabilitation were categorized into four areas: multidisciplinary, rehabilitation, community-care, and comorbidities/complications. Relevant literature from four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed) was searched for articles published up to February 2020. The evidence level and recommended grade were determined according to the grade of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation method. Results A multidisciplinary approach, progressive resistance exercises, and balance training are strongly recommended. Early ambulation, weigh-bearing exercises, activities of daily living training, community-level rehabilitation, management of comorbidities/complication prevention, and nutritional support were also suggested. This multidisciplinary approach reduced the total healthcare cost. Conclusion This guideline presents comprehensive recommendations for the rehabilitation of adult patients after hip fracture surgery.

Background: To date, there has been no practical guidelines for the prescription of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in brain tumor patients in Korea. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, had begun preparing guidelines for AED usage in brain tumors since 2019. Methods: The Working Group was composed of 27 multidisciplinary medical experts in Korea.References were identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL using specific and sensitive keywords as well as combinations of the keywords. Results: The core contents are as follows. Prophylactic AED administration is not recommended in newly diagnosed brain tumor patients without previous seizure history. When AEDs are administered during peri/postoperative period, it may be tapered off according to the following recommendations. In seizure-naïve patients with no postoperative seizure, it is recommended to stop or reduce AED 1 week after surgery. In seizure-naïve patients with one early postoperative seizure (<1 week after surgery), it is advisable to maintain AED for at least 3 months before tapering. In seizure-naïve patients with ≥2 postoperative seizures or in patients with preoperative seizure history, it is recommended to maintain AEDs for more than 1 year. The possibility of drug interactions should be considered when selecting AEDs in brain tumor patients. Driving can be allowed in brain tumor patients when proven to be seizure-free for more than 1 year. Conclusion The KSNO suggests prescribing AEDs in patients with brain tumor based on the current guideline. This guideline will contribute to spreading evidence-based prescription of AEDs in brain tumor patients in Korea.

Background: There have been no guidelines for the management of adult patients with diffuse midline glioma (DMG), H3K27M-mutant in Korea since the 2016 revised WHO classification newly defined this disease entity. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, had begun preparing guidelines for DMG since 2019. Methods: The Working Group was composed of 27 multidisciplinary medical experts in Korea.References were identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL using specific and sensitive keywords as well as combinations of keywords. As ‘diffuse midline glioma’ was recently defined, and there was no international guideline, trials and guidelines of ‘diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma’ or ‘brain stem glioma’ were thoroughly reviewed first. Results: The core contents are as follows. The DMG can be diagnosed when all of the following three criteria are satisfied: the presence of the H3K27M mutation, midline location, and infiltrating feature. Without identification of H3K27M mutation by diagnostic biopsy, DMG cannot be diagnosed. For the primary treatment, maximal safe resection should be considered for tumors when feasible. Radiotherapy is the primary option for tumors in case the total resection is not possible. A total dose of 54 Gy to 60 Gy with conventional fractionation prescribed at 1-2 cm plus gross tumor volume is recommended. Although no chemotherapy has proven to be effective in DMG, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (± maintenance chemotherapy) with temozolomide following WHO grade IV glioblastoma’s protocol is recommended. Conclusion The detection of H3K27M mutation is the most important diagnostic criteria for DMG. Combination of surgery (if amenable to surgery), radiotherapy, and chemotherapy based on comprehensive multidisciplinary discussion can be considered as the treatment options for DMG.